Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said today, in oral arguments before the Eleventh Circuit, that the individual mandate provisions of the health-care law “may violate the constitution of Ayn Rand, but they do not violate the Constitution of the United States”.

The 11th Circuit started hearings June 8, 2011, on ObamaCare. This is the 26 States suit brought by Pam Bondi Florida’s AG.

Judges sharply challenge healthcare law …
Skeptical questions from three federal judges in Atlanta suggest they may be ready to declare unconstitutional all or part of the healthcare law promoted by the Obama administration and passed last year by Congress.

If Congress can force citizens to buy things, America as a free country is finished.

An analysis from an objective source — Medicare’s actuary — says ObamaCare will increase costs and relies on projected savings that may be unrealistic. Now isn’t that a surprise?

The Obama administration has been trying hard to find good news in a new report by government experts on the outlook for the health care economy, now at 17% of GDP and continuing to climb.

To HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the analysis confirms that “the Affordable Health Care Act will cover more Americans and strengthen Medicare by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse.”

More neutral observers will notice that the administration no longer talks about “bending the cost curve” in health care. The analysis released last week by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary tells why. It looks ahead 10 years and reaches two conclusions about the new health care overhaul: More people will be covered, and costs will continue to soar. The cost curve is unbending still.

Chief Actuary Richard Foster pegs ObamaCare’s added costs (that is, beyond what was projected without the overhaul in effect) at $311 billion over 10 years. That’s just under 1% of overall expected health care spending, and administration officials are calling that sum a small price to pay for adding 34 million Americans to public or private insurance rolls.

But the president had set a goal of extending coverage without adding any new cost. More to the point, the problem of runaway costs that plagued the pre-overhaul health care system has not been solved. As Foster points out, much of what ObamaCare proposes to reduce the nation’s health tab, especially in Medicare, is politically unrealistic.

The overhaul projects a net decrease in projected Medicare spending (more accurately, a reduction in future spending increases) of more than $400 billion. But Congress has talked this way before and has been notably timid about pulling the trigger.

Under a 1997 law, for instance, a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians was supposed to go into effect on April 1. But Congress two weeks later put the cut on hold as part of a bill to extend unemployment benefits. As usual, mobilized doctors and frightened seniors got their way.

This pattern of avoiding politically difficult spending cuts has been going on pretty much since the start of Medicare. ObamaCare promises that this behavior will somehow change. That would be a miracle, and actuaries tend to stick with more mundane probabilities.

President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama’s signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members. For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

This health care bill is going to be a noose around the necks of Democrats.

Democrat-turned-independent gubernatorial candidate Tim Cahill warned today that the nation is perilously close to emulating the folly of MassCare:

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress.

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.Echoing criticism leveled by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, “It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.”

Cahill, who bolted the Democratic Party in July, has been a long-time critic of the state’s health insurance law. He said he was calling today’s press conference to respond to Governor Deval Patrick’s accusation last week that he and other gubernatorial candidates have been “missing in action” in tackling health care concerns.

Cahill said it is the governor who has not done enough to lower costs imposed by the state’s health insurance law, which Cahill said “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

“Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?” Cahill asked. Good question.

Just like Hugo Chavez with his rigged up authoritarian ‘democracy’ run by his very own ‘Chicago thugs’. At least that is how he sees it — I suspect America has a slightly differing view of tyranny and tyrants.

And what exactly do you think they want as many socialist Mexicans for?

If I were “The Royals” I would take some time out and read the Declaration of Independence.

FNC: If President Obama is unable to reach a deal with Republicans at the summit, 59 percent think he should start from scratch later. Some 34 percent think he should go ahead and try to pass the current bill without Republican support. A 25% gap.